Mass Strikes Again

Originally Posted by Full Throttle
Here's a simple economic rule: in the long run,
What is the "long run?" Keynes said "In the long run, we're all dead."

As I wrote that, I had a hunch you would use that line. You may be dead, but not my generation and the one after me. Leaving the country as you found it or better would be a noble goal. Unfortunately, the baby boomer generation has done the opposite when it comes to fiscal responsability.

you can not spend more than your bring in.
You can't easily do it most of the time, nor can I, nor can a company, but a nation-state government can OFTEN out-spend it's revenues because it can monetize the debt. As long as it can service the debt and reduce it from time to time, it can spend more than it takes in.
I stand by my original statement, it's very basic and foolish to argue against it. Using your example, I can run up my credit card debt and as long as I continue to bring in enough income to service my debt, I don't have to pay it back either. Right now as has been the long term trend (with some short term exceptions), we are borrowing way more than we are producing and with the future promises that have been made along with current obligations, "that dog don't hunt." (junior college education intended).

Throw in the fact that other options are being looked into by our current debt holders (ie China) because we're going to screw them shortly by making the current debt they hold worthless due to inflation, the party will eventually end. The American public will also be screwed over the by the hidden tax M&M pointed out called inflation.

So, that's the long winded way of backing my original statement, "over the long run, you can't spend more than you bring in."
 
I stick with my thesis that only a Federal single payor system has the ability to be sustainable... and then only if we rearrange our budgetary priorities.


Al

I'm just curious how you think the Federal government is going to contain costs? They run Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, the military health care, oh, and they buy health insurance for millions of government employees, contractors and retirees. I would guess north of 50 million people depend on the Federal government in some form for their health care. Without a doubt, the Federal government is the single largest payor of health care as is.

Yet, health care costs have shown no sign of slowing down. Can you point to anything the government has done to slow down health care inflation? Surely with providing that many people with health care, the government should have some ability to slow down costs, yet they haven't.

You can argue all day long about how eliminating certain expenditures will allow us to pay for health care. But what happens when costs continue to rise faster than revenue and general inflation? Eventually the entire Federal budget will be spent on paying the interest on the money we continue to borrow just to pay for health care, with no end in sight.

Also, for all your self-proclaimed education, you seem to forget that all the money the Feds spends on the military, research, etc. contributes to the economy. Cutting that spending for health care will only hurt those sectors of the economy. What did they do to deserve seeing their profession destroyed? Will the increased spending in health care be enough to compensate for that loss?

When does it stop?
 
There needs to be more transparency in the utilization of health insurance benefits. Take out the copays and let everyone pay the contracted price and quibble over the billing from doctors and hospitals who charge inflated prices. Maybe they will shop for the doctor that gives them the value if they need that. Those that can afford it, let them go to the doctor or doctor's group who charges more.
That is no different from those who choose the designer shoes over shoes from Target or Payless. Put the power back into the hands of the consumer through TRANSPARENCY in the marketplace and everything will take care of itself.
 
Consumers are too lazy to utilize information through transparency. It is a nice talking point but totally useless for the dumb masses.
 
All it takes is the consumer to pay an inflated doctor bill ONCE before he or she is thumbing through the phone book or network looking for a new doctor, especially if the bill was for something minor. Watch how popular the Walgreens walk in clinic will become for minor ailments. We live and work in a tight economy. Americans are feeling the pinch in our pocketbooks and inflated medical costs at the very least should be TRANSPARENT to the consumer. President Obama secured the endorsement from the AMA in order to keep the pricing system in place.
 
All it takes is the consumer to pay an inflated doctor bill ONCE before he or she is thumbing through the phone book or network looking for a new doctor

These are the same consumers that think a $30 doc copay is outrageous and so is $40 for Topamax. They will search for days for major medical plans with copays and $1000 deductibles then buy a mini med that is half the price and has no deductible.

Sorry, but transparency won't make people smarter.
 
I love the wellness bogus these health companies push as well to "lower" everyones costs. Nobody cares about wellness programs. Ridiculous waste of marketing dollars.
 
Wellness studies have been inconclusive for at least the last 20 years. They mostly fail because people become lazy and fall back on old habits. The end result is negligible beyond the first 12 months wellness incentives are put in place.

The only thing that has had demonstrative success is high deductible plans with an HRA or HSA. Whole Foods was profiled in a John Stossel piece a few years back. The owner and employees alike loved the plan once they saw how well it worked. There was grumbling at first but that quickly went away.
 
Back
Top